Osama bin Laden is dead...

[SeanPlunk]

Finally :woot:

[Vettezuki]

Kind of the end of an era in a way. Not sure it means anything in a practical sense. If anything I wouldn't be surprised by a small spate of "lash out" kind of attacks. :huh:

I would also hopes this means we have more of a pretense of drawing down forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan, but probably not.

[SeanPlunk]

http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg

[SeanPlunk]

http://i.imgur.com/PLjoG.png

[Vettezuki]

http://i.imgur.com/KDssc.jpg

Technically he's done little more than continue Bush policies (Hope and Change) but hey, who's counting.

It is a pretty funny pic though. :nutkick:

[Leedom]

O-O-Osama, O-O-Osama, hey, hey hey, Goodbye!! :gatlin:

[AARP]

Only thing playing in my head for the past few hours.
YouTube - Team America - America Fuck Yeah

[SeanPlunk]

http://i.imgur.com/RcRRK.jpg

[SeanPlunk]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/05/02/world/02binladen4_683/02binladen4_683-custom11.jpg

[Sonic03SVT]

so unhappy that Obama is now going to claim credit for this, when all he did was AT BEST continue exactly what Bush had been doing. Right place, right time.


That said, of course im happy the bastard is dead.

[SeanPlunk]

so unhappy that Obama is now going to claim credit for this, when all he did was AT BEST continue exactly what Bush had been doing. Right place, right time.


That said, of course im happy the bastard is dead.

True, but just as the man in charge gets blamed when shit goes bad, you also get credit when stuff goes right. That's just the way it is :o

[Damian]

He isn't dead, he is alive and well in a top secret interrogation room.

[Vettezuki]

He isn't dead, he is alive and well in a top secret interrogation room.

It's an interesting possibility but I doubt it for a couple of reasons. One, he said, and I tend to believe he meant it, that he'd never be taken alive by Americans. He was surrounded by guards instructed to kill him if it looked like that was a serious possibility. Secondly, he's apparently bene cut off from any real "shot calling" for a long time so he wouldn't really have known all that much anyway. This is all just pure speculation of course. I'm just curious to see what the reactions will be. FWIW, while I have HUGE criticisms for American foreign policy, targeted assassination of terrorist heads who plotted or otherwise bank rolled/supported attacks is legit and if we had stuck to just that the whole time, we'd probably be a lot better off generally right now. For that matter, we might have had him a long time ago. But whatever, it's done.

[Vettezuki]

True, but just as the man in charge gets blamed when shit goes bad, you also get credit when stuff goes right. That's just the way it is :o

Ya mean it's politics? No way. :smack:

[Shaolin Crane]

so unhappy that Obama is now going to claim credit for this, when all he did was AT BEST continue exactly what Bush had been doing. Right place, right time.


That said, of course im happy the bastard is dead.

Listening to him speak made me sick, swearing that it was all by his hand, as if he shot the bastard himself

[Vettezuki]

Listening to him speak made me sick, swearing that it was all by his hand, as if he shot the bastard himself

It's just politics. Stand by for some fantastically amusing posturing from all corners.

[Shaolin Crane]

It's an interesting possibility but I doubt it for a couple of reasons. One, he said, and I tend to believe he meant it, that he'd never be taken alive by Americans. He was surrounded by guards instructed to kill him if it looked like that was a serious possibility. Secondly, he's apparently bene cut off from any real "shot calling" for a long time so he wouldn't really have known all that much anyway. This is all just pure speculation of course. I'm just curious to see what the reactions will be. FWIW, while I have HUGE criticisms for American foreign policy, targeted assassination of terrorist heads who plotted or otherwise bank rolled/supported attacks is legit and if we had stuck to just that the whole time, we'd probably be a lot better off generally right now. For that matter, we might have had him a long time ago. But whatever, it's done.

Would you leave your home alive if they came to take you? I know I wouldnt

[Small White Car]

Listening to him speak made me sick, swearing that it was all by his hand, as if he shot the bastard himself



Like GWB, or any other president would have?

He is the commander in chief, so technically he was the one who pulled the trigger.


What I do find amusing is that while GWB used the threat of 'terrists' to severely retard the growth of America while grossly enlarging his and his cronies personal fortunes, the new administration finds the guy and takes him out. Maybe now we can get on with shit instead of chasing boogie men in caves.

It didn't take ten years to find him and kill him, it took two years, but yeah whatever...

:thumbs_up:

[SeanPlunk]

Listening to him speak made me sick, swearing that it was all by his hand, as if he shot the bastard himself

Any President would have said the exact same thing. If you think otherwise, you're being a partisan hack.

[Vettezuki]

. . .

It didn't take ten years to find him and kill him, it took two years, but yeah whatever...

Are you arguing no effort was made until two years ago and that all prior action was a pretense for presence throughout the ME? Well then, are we coming home this week? Then I'd be impressed.

The more interesting point is that rather contrary to campaign rhetoric, Obama has carried on, and very arguably expanded Bush doctrine or a "freedom is on the march" attitude in places like Libya. Where, incidentally, we are via Nato effectively flying air cover for elements of Al Qaeda who cut their teeth fighting in Iraq. So much for consistency.

BTW, to say I'm indifferent to either party is a bit of an understatement. I'm only making observations on policies and actions regardless of who does them.

[Sonic03SVT]

Careful, your talking points are showing. ;)


Like GWB, or any other president would have?

He is the commander in chief, so technically he was the one who pulled the trigger.


What I do find amusing is that while GWB used the threat of 'terrists' to severely retard the growth of America while grossly enlarging his and his cronies personal fortunes, the new administration finds the guy and takes him out. Maybe now we can get on with shit instead of chasing boogie men in caves.

It didn't take ten years to find him and kill him, it took two years, but yeah whatever...

:thumbs_up:

[Chuck]

:kali: :chinese:

All I can say is that fucking rat bastard is finely dead. We should make May 1 a national holiday to remind everyone if you fuck with us you will die even if it takes 10 years.

FUCK YEAH OSAMA IS DEAD!!!!

:kali: :chinese:

[enkeivette]

I'd skull fuck his corpse but I wouldnt want to get my dick dirty.

[enkeivette]

What I do find amusing is that while GWB used the threat of 'terrists' to severely retard the growth of America while grossly enlarging his and his cronies personal fortunes, the new administration finds the guy and takes him out. Maybe now we can get on with shit instead of chasing boogie men in caves.

It didn't take ten years to find him and kill him, it took two years, but yeah whatever...

:thumbs_up:

:bigthumbsup:

I always say this, and my friend who was in the army stationed in Afghanistan immediately after 9-11 says it too, Bush should have put troops into Afghanistan to catch this prick after 9-11, NOT Iraq.

Wasn't the right time to fight Daddy's war and deprive us of troops where we really needed them.

What sort of Republican is Bush? A shitty one. Any other president would have focused all of our military force on that prick after 9-11. Bush did not. FAIL.

[Sonic03SVT]

uh, refresh my memory, did we not go straight to Afghanistan after 9/11? I seem to recall some sort of war there.

:bang:

[heypal]

uh, refresh my memory, did we not go straight to Afghanistan after 9/11? I seem to recall some sort of war there.

:bang:

Our troops where on the ground the next day...Just not officially I believe mainly ops teams I know a few of my friends leave time were cut short.

[Vettezuki]

uh, refresh my memory, did we not go straight to Afghanistan after 9/11? I seem to recall some sort of war there.

:bang:

True. But it's a fair point to point out that enormous resources were diverted away from there to Iraq, something more than a few servicemen complained about as memory serves. Anyway, he was nicked in Pakistan, which has presented a whole series of other challenges. In any event, that was a pretty expensive man hunt.

[Sonic03SVT]

Indeed. And as pointed out elsewhere, im not sure it really changes anything. It sure feels good though. :lmfao:

[Vettezuki]

Indeed. And as pointed out elsewhere, im not sure it really changes anything. It sure feels good though. :lmfao:

It changes nothing, of that I'm pretty confident. And that sorta begs some serious questions considering it cost, depending on how you want to look at it, up to trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives killed, thousands more injured for life, and who knows how many bystanders caught in the middle. Maybe there are better, less emotionally driven ways of handling security and justice. Don't get me wrong, I'm not losing any sleep over a first class turd biting the dust, but I don't really feel any sense of satisfaction or relief either. It's just something that's over and we have all the same problems today we did a couple days ago really. Ah I don't mean to be a downer if this makes people all giddy, just I ain't there.

[enkeivette]

uh, refresh my memory, did we not go straight to Afghanistan after 9/11? I seem to recall some sort of war there.

:bang:

We did. But as it is well known, and as my friend who was in the army actually said, they didn't have enough troops. Because they were all in Iraq.

[kdracer73]

Frankie and I where at The Stagecoach Festival In Indio. Imagine being with 60,000 Red-Blooded, Flag Waving Rednecks and hearing the news !

Click on the first for a video !

http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad94/kdracer73/th_stagecoach2011079.jpg (http://s925.photobucket.com/albums/ad94/kdracer73/?action=view&current=stagecoach2011079.mp4)

http://i925.photobucket.com/albums/ad94/kdracer73/imagejpeg_2-1.jpg

[enkeivette]

That's awesome. Bet it felt super patriotic.

[Small White Car]

I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy. "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.”


just thought I'd throw this out there.

[jedhead]

I hope that now the President realizes the mistake he made in stopping the "enhanced interrogation" that got us the intel to find Bin Laden and stop the Justice Dept from going after the interrogators who used the "enhanced interrogation". I have no illusions that he will make that admission in public, but I hope he rescinds the Presidential Order he signed soon after he became President.
One thing that bothers me is the picture the White House released showing the staff watching the raid shot on helmet cams live. If I was a SEAL, I certainly would not want some armchair quarter back watching over my shoulder.
I do wish that we didn't crash the chopper so that we could have more time to do some more operations with the intel gathered before anyone realized that Osama was dead.


Bob

[SeanPlunk]

I hope that now the President realizes the mistake he made in stopping the "enhanced interrogation" that got us the intel to find Bin Laden and stop the Justice Dept from going after the interrogators who used the "enhanced interrogation". I have no illusions that he will make that admission in public, but I hope he rescinds the Presidential Order he signed soon after he became President.
One thing that bothers me is the picture the White House released showing the staff watching the raid shot on helmet cams live. If I was a SEAL, I certainly would not want some armchair quarter back watching over my shoulder.
I do wish that we didn't crash the chopper so that we could have more time to do some more operations with the intel gathered before anyone realized that Osama was dead.


Bob

The article I read stated that the intel we got regarding the courier was NOT gained through use of "enhanced interrogations," but during a conventional interrogation. I don't believe we need to torture anyone and this seems to reinforce that notion. I support the ban.

[Vettezuki]

just thought I'd throw this out there.

:drink:

[Damian]

The article I read stated that the intel we got regarding the courier was NOT gained through use of "enhanced interrogations," but during a conventional interrogation. I don't believe we need to torture anyone and this seems to reinforce that notion. I support the ban.

And the Govt never lies about anything.

[SeanPlunk]

And the Govt never lies about anything.

Yeah, and Obama was born in Kenya, 9/11 was planned by Bush, etc. I'm tired of all the conspiracy theory nonsense. I'm taking them at their word. Additionally, it still wouldn't justify torture. Water-boarding is torture.

[jedhead]

The article I read stated that the intel we got regarding the courier was NOT gained through use of "enhanced interrogations," but during a conventional interrogation. I don't believe we need to torture anyone and this seems to reinforce that notion. I support the ban.

I got my information from an interview with Rep Peter King a member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis, and Counterintelligence in Congress.

Bob

[Vettezuki]

. . . I'm tired of all the conspiracy theory nonsense. . .

Government (politicians) lie all the time; it's sort of a requirement for the job as voters don't really like being told the truth so politicians tell them what they want to hear to get elected. This is hardly a debatable point. However, in this case, I don't have any specific reason to disbelieve them. The burial at sea thing will stoke the flames of conspiracy theory though.

[SeanPlunk]

I got my information from an interview with Rep Peter King a member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, HUMINT, Analysis, and Counterintelligence in Congress.

Bob

<cite class="vcard"> By ADAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Adam Goldman And Matt Apuzzo, Associated Press </cite> – <abbr title="2011-05-03T04:57:14-0700" class="recenttimedate">50 mins ago</abbr>
WASHINGTON – When one of Osama bin Laden's most trusted aides picked up the phone last year, he unknowingly led U.S. pursuers to the doorstep of his boss, the world's most wanted terrorist.
That monitored phone call, recounted Monday by a U.S. official, ended a years-long search for bin Laden's personal courier, the key break in a worldwide manhunt. The courier, in turn, led U.S. intelligence to a walled compound in northeast Pakistan, where a team of Navy SEALs shot bin Laden to death.
The violent final minutes were the culmination of years of intelligence work. Inside the CIA team hunting bin Laden, it always was clear that bin Laden's vulnerability was his couriers. He was too smart to let al-Qaida foot soldiers, or even his senior commanders, know his hideout. But if he wanted to get his messages out, somebody had to carry them, someone bin Laden trusted with his life.
Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees in the CIA's secret prison network told interrogators about an important courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was close to bin Laden. After the CIA captured al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he confirmed knowing al-Kuwaiti but denied he had anything to do with al-Qaida.
Then in 2004, top al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was a courier, someone crucial to the terrorist organization. In particular, Ghul said, the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al-Qaida's operational commander. It was a key break in the hunt for in bin Laden's personal courier.
"Hassan Ghul was the linchpin," a U.S. official said.
Finally, in May 2005, al-Libi was captured. Under CIA interrogation, al-Libi admitted that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed, he received the word through a courier. But he made up a name for the courier and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti, a denial that was so adamant and unbelievable that the CIA took it as confirmation that he and Mohammed were protecting the courier. It only reinforced the idea that al-Kuwaiti was very important to al-Qaida.
If they could find the man known as al-Kuwaiti, they'd find bin Laden.
The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.
"We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day," said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.
Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic. It took years of work before the CIA identified the courier's real name: Sheikh Abu Ahmed, a Pakistani man born in Kuwait. When they did identify him, he was nowhere to be found. The CIA's sources didn't know where he was hiding. Bin Laden was famously insistent that no phones or computers be used near him, so the eavesdroppers at the National Security Agency kept coming up cold.
Ahmed was identified by detainees as a mid-level operative who helped al-Qaida members and their families find safe havens. But his whereabouts were such a mystery to U.S. intelligence that, according to Guantanamo Bay documents, one detainee said Ahmed was wounded while fleeing U.S. forces during the invasion of Afghanistan and later died in the arms of the detainee.
But in the middle of last year, Ahmed had a telephone conversation with someone being monitored by U.S. intelligence, according to an American official, who like others interviewed for this story spoke only on condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive operation. Ahmed was located somewhere away from bin Laden's hideout when he had the discussion, but it was enough to help intelligence officials locate and watch Ahmed.
In August 2010, Ahmed unknowingly led authorities to a compound in the northeast Pakistani town of Abbottabad, where al-Libi had once lived. The walls surrounding the property were as high as 18 feet and topped with barbed wire. Intelligence officials had known about the house for years, but they always suspected that bin Laden would be surrounded by heavily armed security guards. Nobody patrolled the compound in Abbottabad.
In fact, nobody came or went. And no telephone or Internet lines ran from the compound. The CIA soon believed that bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, in a hideout especially built to go unnoticed. But since bin Laden never traveled and nobody could get onto the compound without passing through two security gates, there was no way to be sure.
Despite that uncertainty, intelligence officials realized this could represent the best chance ever to get to bin Laden. They decided not to share the information with anyone, including staunch counterterrorism allies such as Britain, Canada and Australia.
By mid-February, the officials were convinced a "high-value target" was hiding in the compound. President Barack Obama wanted to take action.
"They were confident and their confidence was growing: 'This is different. This intelligence case is different. What we see in this compound is different than anything we've ever seen before,'" John Brennan, the president's top counterterrorism adviser, said Monday. "I was confident that we had the basis to take action."
Options were limited. The compound was in a residential neighborhood in a sovereign country. If Obama ordered an airstrike and bin Laden was not in the compound, it would be a huge diplomatic problem. Even if Obama was right, obliterating the compound might make it nearly impossible to confirm bin Laden's death.
Said Brennan, "The president had to evaluate the strength of that information, and then made what I believe was one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory."
Brennan told CNN Tuesday that "there was no single piece of information that was an 'ah-hah' moment." He said officials took "bits and pieces" of intelligence gathered and analyzed over a long period of time to nail down the leads they needed.
Obama tapped two dozen members of the Navy's elite SEAL Team Six to carry out a raid with surgical accuracy.
Before dawn Monday morning, a pair of helicopters left Jalalabad in eastern Afghanistan. The choppers entered Pakistani airspace using sophisticated technology intended to evade that country's radar systems, a U.S. official said.
Officially, it was a kill-or-capture mission, since the U.S. doesn't kill unarmed people trying to surrender. But it was clear from the beginning that whoever was behind those walls had no intention of surrendering, two U.S. officials said.
The helicopters lowered into the compound, dropping the SEALs behind the walls. No shots were fired, but shortly after the team hit the ground, one of the helicopters came crashing down and rolled onto its side for reasons the government has yet to explain. None of the SEALs was injured, however, and the mission continued uninterrupted.
With the CIA and White House monitoring the situation in real time — presumably by live satellite feed or video carried by the SEALs — the team stormed the compound.
Thanks to sophisticated satellite monitoring, U.S. forces knew they'd likely find bin Laden's family on the second and third floors of one of the buildings on the property, officials said. The SEALs secured the rest of the property first, then proceeded to the room where bin Laden was hiding. A firefight ensued, Brennan said.
Ahmed and his brother were killed, officials said. Then, the SEALs killed bin Laden with a bullet just above his left eye, blowing off part his skull, another official said. Using the call sign for his visual identification, one of the soldiers communicated that "Geronimo" had been killed in action, according to a U.S. official.
Bin Laden's body was immediately identifiable, but the U.S. also conducted DNA testing that identified him with near 100 percent certainty, senior administration officials said. Photo analysis by the CIA, confirmation on site by a woman believed to be bin Laden's wife, who was wounded, and matching physical features such as bin Laden's height all helped confirm the identification. At the White House, there was no doubt.
"I think the accomplishment that very brave personnel from the United States government were able to realize yesterday is a defining moment in the war against al-Qaida, the war on terrorism, by decapitating the head of the snake known as al-Qaida," Brennan said.
U.S. forces searched the compound and flew away with documents, hard drives and DVDs that could provide valuable intelligence about al-Qaida, a U.S. official said. The entire operation took about 40 minutes, officials said.
Bin Laden's body was flown to the USS Carl Vinson in the North Arabian sea, a senior defense official said. There, aboard a U.S. warship, officials conducted a traditional Islamic burial ritual. Bin Laden's body was washed and placed in a white sheet. He was placed in a weighted bag that, after religious remarks by a military officer, was slipped into the sea about 2 a.m. EDT Monday.
Said the president, "I think we can all agree this is a good day for America."
___
Associated Press writers Kimberly Dozier, Eileen Sullivan and Ben Feller in Washington and Kathy Gannon in Islamabad, Pakistan, contributed to this report.

:huh:

Regardless, waterboarding is torture and I don't support it.

[SeanPlunk]

Government (politicians) lie all the time; it's sort of a requirement for the job as voters don't really like being told the truth so politicians tell them what they want to hear to get elected. This is hardly a debatable point. However, in this case, I don't have any specific reason to disbelieve them. The burial at sea thing will stoke the flames of conspiracy theory though.

When did I say they didn't lie :ugh:

That's probably the only thing we can all agree on :sm_laughing:

However, the birthers, truthers, etc, are a bunch of dipshits :judge:

[Vettezuki]

. . . truthers, etc, are a bunch of dipshits :judge:

There's not much you can do with people who buy into a narrative hook line and sinker. Once one told me, and I shit you not, in response to me saying extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence . . . "facts don't need evidence"; that's when I realized it was pretty pointless arguing with most of them. Some of the ones who just fall into the "skeptical of the official story" can be reached, but beyond that, they are lost to reason. The brutal simple reality of most human civilization is 'never attribute to malice what can be explained with simple stupidity."

I'm just waiting for National Enquirer pics of bin Ladin with Hitler in a Czech cafe or something equaling amusing. :smack:

[Damian]

This is a bit racist but funny as shit:

Breaking news: all convenient stores, mini marts, hotels and 7-11s will be closed this week do to a death in the family !!!!

[Vettezuki]

This is a bit racist but funny as shit:

Breaking news: all convenient stores, mini marts, hotels and 7-11s will be closed this week do to a death in the family !!!!

I think this guy wrote that joke.

YouTube - Osama's dead, baby. Osama's dead.

[jedhead]

Your article fails to give out the names of their sources who are making the claim that the information ie: "Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic." At least I name my source. Who are these former officials?

Bob

[Damian]

LoL!!

[Damian]

The one problem I have is that if they did kill him, they should have NEVER given him a barial at sea. I have done 2 burial at sea funerals and those are reserved for military service members who have served this country, not who were mass murderers.

[Vettezuki]

The one problem I have is that if they did kill him, they should have NEVER given him a barial at sea. I have done 2 burial at sea funerals and those are reserved for military service members who have served this country, not who were mass murderers.

Actually it's a reciprocal "honor" paid to combatants. We did it for recovered Russian submariners during the cold war on at least one occasion. It think we may have even done it for remains of Kamikaze pilots during WWII. We followed Islamic law (less than 24 hours, before following sundown or something like that) for those KIA in Iraq in the first Persian Gulf war for certain. I guess the reason for at sea is they don't want to turn the damn burial site into another shrine. I just like that it'll be endless fodder for conspiracy theorists to pontificate on.

[Damian]

That makes sense then.

[kdracer73]

I'm just waiting for National Enquirer pics of bin Ladin with Hitler AND ELVIS in a Czech cafe or something equaling amusing. :smack:

Fixed it for ya !

[kdracer73]

Knock Knock

"Who's there?"

Bang Bang !!:gatlin:

Navy Seals don't do Knock knock jokes .

[SeanPlunk]

Your article fails to give out the names of their sources who are making the claim that the information ie: "Mohammed did not discuss al-Kuwaiti while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He acknowledged knowing him many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic." At least I name my source. Who are these former officials?

Bob

Meh, not sure.

Here is another article for you though:
*** Did the harsh interrogations play an important role? News organizations are fact-checking the assertion that the “enhanced interrogation techniques” during the Bush administration helped lead to bin Laden. And the emerging consensus is that they played a small role. The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?hp): “[A] closer look at prisoner interrogations suggests that the harsh techniques played a small role at most in identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out. One detainee who apparently was subjected to some tough treatment provided a crucial description of the courier, according to current and former officials briefed on the interrogations. But two prisoners who underwent some of the harshest treatment — including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times — repeatedly misled their interrogators about the courier’s identity.” As one former U.S. counterterrorism official told NBC’s Michael Isikoff (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42863247/ns/world_news-death_of_bin_laden/): “They waterboarded KSM 183 times, and he still didn’t give the guy up.” More: “Come on. And you want to tell me that enhanced interrogation techniques worked?"

Regardless, water boarding is torture and we prosecuted Japanese soldiers after WWII for doing it. Why should it be okay for us to do it now?

[jedhead]

The Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta also back up that the "harsh interrogation" methods were used to get the information that started the search for the courier that lead to Osama.
Water boarding was on the long list of criminal charges committed by the Japanese and pales in comparison with the other charges. Please name a soldier in WW2 who was charged and convicted for water boarding alone or as the most serious charge.
I see thing this way. What would I do to get information to save my a member of my family's life from some one that has that information and time is critical? I think you know my answer.

Bob

[SeanPlunk]

The Director of the CIA, Leon Panetta also back up that the "harsh interrogation" methods were used to get the information that started the search for the courier that lead to Osama.
Water boarding was on the long list of criminal charges committed by the Japanese and pales in comparison with the other charges. Please name a soldier in WW2 who was charged and convicted for water boarding alone or as the most serious charge.
I see thing this way. What would I do to get information to save my a member of my family's life from some one that has that information and time is critical? I think you know my answer.

Bob

That's a very slippery slope Bob, which is the reason we have laws regarding things like torture.

Also, whether waterboarding was the worst charge or the only charge is irrelevant. We considered it a form of torture and prosecuted them for it.

[Small White Car]

Torture never got us dick, our problem is we were asking the wrong people.

:15 and 1:10 for those who don't like Schandling.


YouTube - Follow The Woman: In 2008, Christiane Amanpour said Osama Bin Laden lives in a villa


This is 2008 on a fucking comedy show for fucks sake!

:worf:

[Chuck]

I say water board the shit out of those fuckers. So its not okay to water board but it is okay to kill.

[SeanPlunk]

I say water board the shit out of those fuckers. So its not okay to water board but it is okay to kill.

That's not an argument. We are part of a civilized society and as such we have rules for things like interrogations and torture.

Who said anything about it being okay to kill by the way :uh:

[Small White Car]

So its not okay to water board but it is okay to kill.


Well, if you want to be pedantic about it, yes.


The short answer is that when you kill, the suffering is (supposed to be) quick and painless.

Humane if you will.

Torture, whatever the form, is used to break a persons mind and that, for however useful it may or may not be is just not humane.

[Chuck]

What about the people who where burned alive on 9/11 I say what goes around comes around.

[jedhead]

I guess the President need to order the Joint Chiefs to arrest and prosecute the staff over at the Navy SERE school for water boarding our pilots and crew. I had a few friends and family who were water boarded by SERE school as part of their training.

Bob

[Damian]

I say what goes around comes around.

That's what I say, but that won't happen.

[SeanPlunk]

I guess the President need to order the Joint Chiefs to arrest and prosecute the staff over at the Navy SERE school for water boarding our pilots and crew. I had a few friends and family who were water boarded by SERE school as part of their training.

Bob

There is a big difference between submitting to doing it as a part of training, and being subjected to it as a prisoner ;)

[SeanPlunk]

What about the people who where burned alive on 9/11 I say what goes around comes around.

That a bumper sticker slogan, not a logical thought.

We have laws in this country, it's not an eye for an eye. If you want it that way, you should go live in one of the muslim countries like Iran that practices Sharia law (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/28/iran-acid-attack-sharia-law).

[Vettezuki]

That's not an argument. We are part of a civilized society and as such we have rules for things like interrogations and torture.

Civilized society? Compared to some in the past I suppose. We're ages away from a civilized society.

Who said anything about it being okay to kill by the way :uh:

We justify killing all the time, including innocent women and children as an "unfortunate consequences" of war. It's ok I guess because we try hard not to sometimes. Mind you, if you have a drink and kill someone in an accident you may got to prison for manslaughter. If you explicitly order Predator drone attacks that kill people who have nothing to do with anything, but you are part of a government, hell, you can be a Nobel Peace Prize winner and kill. That's the "civilized" world we live in. Water boarding is a fairly trivial tangential issue compared to our willingness to use outright death and destruction, mangled and charred corpses, and ruined lives as a policy tool. Which we're doing in Libya right now, as we quite literally fly cover for elements of the same organization that we just killed the head of.

[Vettezuki]

. . .We have laws in this country, it's not an eye for an eye. . .

You mean like the death penalty for murder cases? You might want to check some of your premises about law. In our entire history of judeo-christian, Roman, and Anglo-Saxxon Common Law, it is all about balance and reciprocity between parties. Traditionally when someone stole, they had to return property or otherwise make restitution, if they killed, they might get killed back, etc. The rest is a matter of interpretation of the facts in the application of law in the service justice.

[SeanPlunk]

You mean like the death penalty for murder cases? You might want to check some of your premises about law. In our entire history of judeo-christian, Roman, and Anglo-Saxxon Common Law, it is all about balance and reciprocity between parties. Traditionally when someone stole, they had to return property or otherwise make restitution, if they killed, they might get killed back, etc. The rest is a matter of interpretation of the facts in the application of law in the service justice.

We do have the death penalty, but not every killer gets it. Each case is tried under our legal system and punishment is doled out through due process. Is it a perfect system? No. Does it have limitations? Of Course. To compare it to Sharia law or the idea of eye for an eye is just silly though and you know it :thumbs_up:

[Vettezuki]

We do have the death penalty, but not every killer gets it. Each case is tried under our legal system and punishment is doled out through due process. Is it a perfect system? No. Does it have limitations? Of Course. To compare it to Sharia law or the idea of eye for an eye is just silly though and you know it :thumbs_up:

This time, you're just plain wrong about legal history. I'm not comparing it Sharia law, but I don't think you know the biblical legal context, just the common misunderstanding (deliberate misrepresentation?) of "an eye for an eye". It was about balanced reciprocity, in other words, not "your dog crapped on my lawn, so I kill you", but "you killed, so you can be killed" "you stole property, so you have property taken from you." Our own legal system has this built into it and it evolved over the ages, but that was the basis from the Hebrew Bible, on into Roman law up threw English Common Law. The very notion of equal justice under the law has roots back into the Torah of "an eye in place of an eye." It was NOT some willy nilly open ended invitation to whatever your revenge, but EXACTLY the opposite, a limitation on what constitutes just compensation. Don't feel bad, this is just one of many things most people think they know, but actually have backwards. :thumbs_up:

The meaning of the principle, an eye for an eye is that a person who has injured another person returns the offending action to the originator in compensation. The exact Latin (lex talionis) to English translation of this phrase is actually "The law of retaliation." At the root of this principle is that one of the purposes of the law is to provide equitable retribution for an offended party.

The phrase, "an eye for an eye", (ayin tachat ayin, literally 'an eye in place of an eye'), is a quotation from several passages of the Hebrew Bible [1][2][3] in which a person who has injured the eye of another is instructed to pay compensation. It defined and restricted the extent of retribution in the laws of the Torah.

[SeanPlunk]

This time, you're just plain wrong about legal history. I'm not comparing it Sharia law, but I don't think you know the biblical legal context, just the common misunderstanding (deliberate misrepresentation?) of "an eye for an eye". It was about balanced reciprocity, in other words, not "your dog crapped on my lawn, so I kill you", but "you killed, so you can be killed" "you stole property, so you have property taken from you." Our own legal system has this built into it and it evolved over the ages, but that was the basis from the Hebrew Bible, on into Roman law up threw English Common Law. The very notion of equal justice under the law has roots back into the Torah of "an eye in place of an eye." It was NOT some willy nilly open ended invitation to whatever your revenge, but EXACTLY the opposite, a limitation on what constitutes just compensation. Don't feel bad, this is just one of many things most people think they know, but actually have backwards. :thumbs_up:

I was talking about the literal context of an eye for an eye, as in the case I linked to, but I do appreciate the history lesson. The history is actually fascinating.

[Vettezuki]

I was talking about the literal context of an eye for an eye, as in the case I linked to, but I do appreciate the history lesson. The history is actually fascinating.

Fair enough. :drink:

[SeanPlunk]

Fair enough. :drink:

I'm more interested in why you don't think we live in a civilized society? I would argue that the current society we live in is probably the most civilized in human history.

[Vettezuki]

I'm more interested in why you don't think we live in a civilized society? I would argue that the current society we live in is probably the most civilized in human history.

Let me think about how to make it concise and I'll start a different post. The very bottom line would be the more a society is free AND absent violence in all human relations, the more civilized it is and vice versa. In this regard, there are areas where we are more civilized than anytime past, some where we are not as civilized as times past, but in all cases, a long way from the plausible ideal (nevermind utopian ideal, which is not possible).

[Small White Car]

Civilized?

Advanced yeah, sure. Civilized, I'm really not so sure we're even close to some other societies that have gone before, before they were wiped out by the less civilized of course.

It aint no different today.


:vikings:

[enkeivette]

Let me think about how to make it concise and I'll start a different post. The very bottom line would be the more a society is free AND absent violence in all human relations, the more civilized it is and vice versa. In this regard, there are areas where we are more civilized than anytime past, some where we are not as civilized as times past, but in all cases, a long way from the plausible ideal (nevermind utopian ideal, which is not possible).

I'll cast my vote for Sean on this one. :P

This is just semantics. I remember in Jr.High my computer lab teacher wanted us to do a report on some piece of "technology." I chose airplanes.

She said "no, airplanes have been around for too long, that's not technology."
Um...

Not saying you're dumb by any means (obviously she was a tard) just that you're pushing the definition to get your point across.



...You guys fight so much it makes me wonder sometimes if there's a lil somethin somethin goin on between you two. (Insert vin diesel retaliation joke here)->

[SeanPlunk]

Civilized?

Advanced yeah, sure. Civilized, I'm really not so sure we're even close to some other societies that have gone before, before they were wiped out by the less civilized of course.

It aint no different today.


:vikings:

Such as?

[enkeivette]

Such as?

:iagree:

I'd take a GPS over a sun dial any day.

[Vettezuki]

Well the Mongols and Vikings did a rather tremendous amount of ass kicking on some relatively advanced and arguably more civilized societies. Hell Genghis Kahn killed so many people (by hand) in Chinese cities that entire previously populated regions turned back into forests.

[enkeivette]

Well the Mongols and Vikings did a rather tremendous amount of ass kicking on some relatively advanced and arguably more civilized societies. Hell Genghis Kahn killed so many people (by hand) in Chinese cities that entire previously populated regions turned back into forests.

I think you're so into government and you hate ours so much, that your not giving jets, hospitals, banks, and tv dinners enough weight into how 'civilized' we are.

Or does it really come down to just violence for you? Numbers killed v. population, lowest ratio wins? ...Then I think France would prob win.

[Vettezuki]

I think you're so into government and you hate ours so much, that your not giving jets, hospitals, banks, and tv dinners enough weight into how 'civilized' we are.

I hate what a state is. Government in principle is fine. Within firms, clubs, etc., there is governance. The ideal of the American government was fantastic, the peak in human history IMO. What it has become is pretty sad for anyone who admires the original ideal.

Our standard of living as function of technology is something driven by markets; which I love. We've never had a perfectly free market but certainly among the most free, especially in times past, not for a while now. So what you admire in "civilization" as the technology component, an I do too, need not follow from and aggressive and violent state, or IMO, any state at all.

Or does it really come down to just violence for you? Numbers killed v. population, lowest ratio wins? ...Then I think France would prob win.

Lack of violence scores very high on the "how civilized are you" scale for me. So yes, there's absolutely room for distinguishing between technologically advanced and civilized.

Heading into WWII, the Third Reich arguably hit the all time high score of possibly the most technologically advanced and least civil people in the word. . maybe ever.

I'm not arguing there aren't other definitions, like refinement in taste and culture being another, or technological advancement, particularly when referring to "civilization", but I'm more intensely focused on:

<< Showing evidence of moral and intellectual advancement; humane, ethical, and reasonable:

Now, while we may disagree on exactly what humane, ethical, and reasonable are; less than more violence is something fairly universal.

[enkeivette]

Considering our prison systems, do you really believe we are more violent than the mongols?

Maybe there are more gang wars and hooker/ drug murders today, but thats a relatively small percentage of the population. And our gov takes those people off the streets when they catch them.

Im sure in mongol times, you had to give up your lunch money when the bully came at you with a spear. There was no man in blue to save you.

[Vettezuki]

Considering our prison systems, do you really believe we are more violent than the mongols?

I didn't compare current US to the Mongols, I gave the Mongols and Vikings as examples of violent peoples who conquered arguably more civilized people. (The details are fascinating and complex, but way beyond a scope even I would try here.)


Maybe there are more gang wars and hooker/ drug murders today, but thats a relatively small percentage of the population. And our gov takes those people off the streets when they catch them.

It is precisely the actions of our state in making these things illegal that causes said underground economy wars and violence. The root cause is the state. Want an empirical example that proves even we understand this? What emerged and flourished during prohibition? What cash cow business ended when prohibition ended? Likewise, the horrorific drug wars in Mexico are a derivitive of the US "War on Drugs". Which incidentally imprisons hundreds of thousands of people for non-violent "crimes", and more than a few times people have been killed, without much consequence, by our beloved police in the course of "executing" current policy. Uncivilized.

Im sure in mongol times, you had to give up your lunch money when the bully came at you with a spear. There was no man in blue to save you.

Nonsense on two accounts. The Mongols won because they were physically superior at conquest by war, not because the victims had no means of defending themselves. Secondly, I'm delighted to pay for security (and do at my biz), but the extortion used to pay for Police really isn't necessary. The economic incentive structures that follow lead to grotesque distortions a market would never tolerate. I'll pay for police and most would. It'd be awesome to be able to fire them by taking my business elsewhere when I didn't like the service on offer. Now? STFU and pay. Uncivilized.

[enkeivette]

Now? STFU and pay. Uncivilized.

Annnd there it is. Hahaha.


But I get your points.

I agree with all except your argument that making things illegal is what causes violence. Rape doesn't happen because it's illegal. Rape happens because some men are more like dogs than civilized humans.

I could agree with the argument that making drugs illegal creates an underground atmosphere that perpetuates violence as an example. But that isn't true for all crimes. And the laws and law enforcement do affect some good, and do stop some violence.

[Vettezuki]

. . I agree with all except your argument that making things illegal is what causes violence. Rape doesn't happen because it's illegal. Rape happens because some men are more like dogs than civilized humans.

Your honor, counsel is evading. I didn't say anything about some douche bags raping (an actual violent crime). I refereed to the sound economic principle of supply and demand. Make a supply illegal where demand remains, the equilibrium price rises and those willing to ignore the law . . . violently . . . in search of massive quick profits emerges. I also gave an empirical historical example to illustrate the principle. How something can be theoretically and empirically sound, yet ignored mystifies me. Lewis Black face please. Next.

I could agree with the argument that making drugs illegal creates an underground atmosphere that perpetuates violence as an example. But that isn't true for all crimes.

And I didn't say it was. I'm not a nirvana utopian. I am saying . . . .think.

And the laws and law enforcement do affect some good, and do stop some violence.

And I didn't say they didn't. I question the current mechanism as the only, the most efficient, and the most moral. I object on all counts. I'm 100% positive about the first and third, I'm 99% positive about the second. See, I'm a moderate.

As a side note, I had a lot more admiration for Police as "peace officers". Now they are Law Enforcement. Armed, dangerous, and apparently scared of their own shadows.

So what happens to a half deaf guy whittling some wood in public.

YouTube - Dashcam video of Seattle police shooting

If you're a member of the state, relatively little (and probably only if there is a public outcry), if anything, will happen to you. Meanwhile, if you use a gun to protect your own property, not actually harming anyone, just showing it to someone who ought not be on your property, you can go to jail for assault. Uncivilized.

I can do this all day. I only use the police and gun example because it's
more "intense". There are endless examples that are more "mundane" and technical.

Personally, I think we're (human beings) far closer to caves and trees than our potential and this is perhaps all just part of our development. Fine. Another 2,000 years from now, people look back wonder why we could have thought what we do. I'm just on the side saying some of the things most people think are necessary aren't, or there's at least a better way to solve the same problems.

[enkeivette]

Holy shit, did he kill that guy? Where did he shoot him?


You said "It is precisely the actions of our state in making these things illegal that causes said underground economy wars and violence. The root cause is the state."

Which means that you agree that making things illegal is what causes "gang wars, hooker/ drug murders." And as far as I can see, that is the main source of violence in our society, so, what other violence are you talking about that makes us less civilized?


Also, if someone comes onto your property maliciously, in Texas shooting them isn't illegal. It's called the castle doctrine. Someone breaks in, you can kill them. I think you'd like it better there.

[enkeivette]

His first shot was 4 seconds after his first request, then he unloaded 5 rounds.

[enkeivette]

Wow, he was killed.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/12/23/court-releases-video-deadly-police-shooting-native-american-seattle/

The guy was deaf and the knife was closed. That cop was a pussy, he couldn't have maintained distance and run around in front of the guy? That's murder.

[Small White Car]

State sanctioned murder in this case.


I like the idea of firing the cops and believe it or not, it can be done. My city police force contracts out to the next town over, Compton at one point fired the entire corrupt police force and brought in the sheriff. It isn't easy but it can be done.

[enkeivette]

Not only can you fire them, you can sue them personally, and you can charge them with crimes. It's a wonder the DA didn't charge him with murder.

Cops only have the same rights to kill that you do, self-defense and defense of others. If someone tries to kill or rape your gf, you have a complete defense if you need to kill them to stop them.

[enkeivette]

This cop was fired btw.

[Small White Car]

How much time did he get?

[enkeivette]

How much time did he get?

I don't know if he was locked up or not.

[Small White Car]

That's a shame, since the deaf guy got the death penalty thrown at him.

Badge or not, sometimes what you see (or hear in this case) is what it is, if the officers penalty was he got kicked out of the game without pay I sure as hell hope he got wrung for every dollar he's ever going to generate in the civil court.

Money isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, but the cop should be in a cell, barring that I guess sitting in the hell that is his own mind will have to do. Every time he thinks he'd sure like to be living somewhere other than the shit hole hotel room he can barely afford eating a Banquet $1 TV dinner YET AGAIN...

Staring at the old 19 inch tv watching basic cable, drinking Dewar's by the quart, thinking over and over again.

"Fuck man, if only I hadn't killed that poor guy for nothing."

It's little justice but I suppose it'll have to do.

[enkeivette]

That's a shame, since the deaf guy got the death penalty thrown at him.

Badge or not, sometimes what you see (or hear in this case) is what it is, if the officers penalty was he got kicked out of the game without pay I sure as hell hope he got wrung for every dollar he's ever going to generate in the civil court.

Money isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead, but the cop should be in a cell, barring that I guess sitting in the hell that is his own mind will have to do. Every time he thinks he'd sure like to be living somewhere other than the shit hole hotel room he can barely afford eating a Banquet $1 TV dinner YET AGAIN...

Staring at the old 19 inch tv watching basic cable, drinking Dewar's by the quart, thinking over and over again.

"Fuck man, if only I hadn't killed that poor guy for nothing."

It's little justice but I suppose it'll have to do.

Adam likes this. :bigthumbsup:

But don't talk shit about Banquet TV dinners! I'm poor and those are goooooood. Hahahah, JK